A surrogate endpoint is an endpoint observed earlier than the true endpoint (a health outcome) that is used to draw conclusions about the effect of treatment on the unobserved true endpoint. A prognostic marker is a marker for predicting the risk of an event given a control treatment; it informs treatment decisions when there is information on anticipated benefits and harms of a new treatment applied to persons at high risk. A predictive marker is a marker for predicting the effect of treatment on outcome in a subgroup of patients or study participants; it provides more rigorous information for treatment selection than a prognostic marker when it is based on estimated treatment effects in a randomized trial.
Methods:
We organized our discussion around a different theme for each topic.
Results:
“Fundamentally an extrapolation” refers to the non-statistical considerations and assumptions needed when using surrogate endpoints to evaluate a new treatment. “Decision analysis to the rescue” refers to use the use of decision analysis to evaluate an additional prognostic marker because it is not possible to choose between purely statistical measures of marker performance. “The appeal of simplicity” refers to a straightforward and efficient use of a single randomized trial to evaluate overall treatment effect and treatment effect within subgroups using predictive markers.
Conclusion:
The simple themes provide a general guideline for evaluation of surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers.
LagakosSW. Using auxiliary variables for improved estimates of survival time. Biometrics1977; 33: 399–404.
2.
CoxDR. A remark on censoring and surrogate response variables. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol1983; 45: 391–393.
3.
BakerSG. Analyzing a randomized cancer prevention trial with a missing binary outcome, an auxiliary variable, and all-or-none compliance. J Am Stat Assoc2000; 95: 43–50.
4.
The Alpha-Tocopherol Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med1994; 330: 1029–1103.
5.
LamSleRicheJCMcWilliamsA. A randomized phase IIb trial of pulmicort turbuhaler (budesonide) in people with dysplasia of the bronchial epithelium. Clin Cancer Res2004; 10: 6502–6511.
6.
BakerSGKramerBS. The risky reliance on small surrogate endpoint studies when planning a large prevention trial. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc2013; 176: 603–608.
7.
BakerSGKramerBS. Surrogate endpoint analysis: an exercise in extrapolation. J Natl Cancer Inst2013; 105: 316–320.
8.
PrenticeRL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Stat Med1989; 8: 431–440.
9.
BuyseMMolenberghsG. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics1998; 54: 1014–1029.
10.
FrangakisCERubinDB. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics2002; 58: 21–29.
11.
PermuttTHebelR. Simultaneous-equation estimation in a clinical trial of the effect of smoking on birth weight. Biometrics1989; 45: 619–622.
12.
BakerSGLindemanKS. The paired availability design: a proposal for evaluating epidural analgesia during labor. Stat Med1994; 13: 2269–2278.
13.
AngristJDImbensGWRubinDB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc1996; 92: 444–455.
14.
SargentDJWieandSHallerDG. Disease-free survival (DFS) vs. overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol2005; 23: 8664–8670.
15.
Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Modulation of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol2004; 22: 3766–3775.
16.
BurzykowskiTMolenberghsGBuyseM. The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: a case-study in advanced colorectal cancer. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc2004; 167: 103–124.
17.
BakerSGSargentDJBuyseM. Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time. Biometrics2012; 68: 248–257.
18.
HernánMA. The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology2010; 21: 13–15.
19.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSDvorinEL. Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks. BMJ2006; 333: 1248.
20.
ForrowLTaylorWCArnoldRM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med1992; 92: 121–124.
21.
NaylorCChenEStraussB. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?Ann Intern Med1992; 117: 916–921.
22.
MalenkaDJBaronJAJohansenS. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med1993; 8: 543–548.
23.
BakerSGIzmirlianGKipnisV. Resolving paradoxes involving surrogate endpoints. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc2005; 168: 753–762.
24.
BuyseMMolenberghsGBurzykowskiT. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics2000; 1: 49–67.
25.
GailMHPfeifferRVan HouwelingenHC. On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics2000; 3: 231–246.
26.
DanielsMJHughesMD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med1997; 16: 1965–1982.
27.
FreedmanL. Commentary on assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Stat Med2005; 24: 183–185.
28.
BurzykowskiTBuyseM. Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharm Stat2006; 5: 173–186.
ItalianoA. Prognostic or predictive? It’s time to get back to definitions. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 4718.
31.
SargentDJMandrekarSJ. Statistical issues in the validation of prognostic, predictive, and surrogate biomarkers. Clin Trials2013; 10: 647–652.
32.
JanesHPepeMSGuW. Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables. Ann Intern Med2008; 149: 751–760.
33.
PepeMSJanesHLongtonG. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol2004; 159: 882–890.
34.
BiswasSArumBParmigianiG. Reclassification of predictions for uncovering subgroup specific improvement. Stat Med2014; 33: 1914–1927.
35.
SpitzMRAmosCID’AmelioAJr. Discriminatory accuracy from single-nucleotide polymorphisms in models to predict breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst2009; 101: 1731–1732.
36.
BakerSGCookNRVickersA. Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc2009; 172: 729–748.
37.
BakerSG. Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves. J Natl Cancer Inst2009; 101: 1538–1542.
38.
BakerSGSchuitESteyerbergEW. How to interpret a small increase in AUC with an additional risk prediction marker: decision analysis comes through. Stat Med2014; 33: 3946–3959.
39.
VickersAJElkinEB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making2006; 26: 565–574.
40.
TiceJACummingsSRSmith-BindmanR. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med2008; 148: 337–347.
41.
PaukerSGKassirerJP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med1980; 302: 1109–1117.
42.
MetzCE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Sem Nucl Med1978; 8: 283–298.
43.
GailMHPfeifferRM. On criteria for evaluating models for absolute risk. Biostatistics2005; 6: 227–239.
44.
JanesHPepeMSBossuytPM. Measuring the performance of markers guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med2011; 154: 253–259.
45.
BakerSGFreedmanLS. Potential impact of genetic testing on cancer prevention trials, using breast cancer as an example. J Natl Cancer Inst1995; 87: 1137–1144.
46.
SargentDJConleyBAAllegraC. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol2005; 23: 2020–2027.
SongXPepeMS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient’s treatment. Biometrics2004; 60: 874–883.
49.
BakerSG. Biomarker evaluation in randomized trials: addressing different research questions. Stat Med2014; 33: 4139–4140.
50.
BakerSGKramerBS. Statistics for weighing benefits and harms in a proposed genetic substudy of a randomized cancer prevention trial. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat2005; 54: 941–954.
51.
FreidlinBSimonR. Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients. Clin Cancer Res2005; 11: 7872–7878.
52.
SimonR. The use of genomics in clinical trial design. Clin Cancer Res2008; 14: 5984–5994.
53.
ByarDPCorleDK. Selecting optimal treatment in clinical trials using covariate information. J Chronic Dis1977; 7: 445–459.
54.
VickersAJKattanMWSargentDJ. Method for evaluating prediction models that apply the results of randomized trials to individual patients. Trials2007; 9: 14.
55.
CaiTTianLWongPH. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics2011; 12: 270–282.
56.
FosterJCTaylorJMGRubergSJ. Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data. Stat Med2011; 30: 2867–2880.
57.
HuangYGilbertPBJanesH. Assessing treatment-selection markers using a potential outcomes framework. Biometrics2012; 68: 687–696.
58.
ZhaoLTianLCaiT. Effectively selecting a target population for a future comparative study. J Am Stat Assoc2013; 108(502): 527–539.
59.
JanesHBrownMDHuangY. An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection. Int J Biostat2014; 10: 99–121.
60.
WeisbergHIPontesVP. Causalytics LLC. Cadit modeling for estimating individual causal effects, http://www.causalytics.com/ (2012, accessed 9 September 2014).
61.
DusseldorpEVan MechelenI. Qualitative interaction trees: a tool to identify qualitative treatment-subgroup interactions. Stat Med2014; 33: 219–237.
62.
ZhangBTsiatisALaberE. A robust method for estimating optimal treatment regimes. Biometrics2012; 68: 1010–1018.
63.
ZhaoYZengDRushAJ. Estimating individualized treatment rules using outcome weighted learning. J Am Stat Assoc2012; 107: 1106–1118.
64.
JanesHPepeMSHuangY. A framework for evaluating markers used to select patient treatment. Med Decis Making2014; 34: 159–167.
DudoitSFridlyandJSpeedTP. Comparison of discrimination methods for the classification of tumors using gene expression data. J Am Stat Assoc2002; 97: 77–87.
67.
HandDJ. Classifier technology and the illusion of progress. Stat Sci2006; 21: 1–14.
68.
BakerSG. Simple and flexible classification via Swirls-and-Ripples. BMC Bioinformatics2010; 11: 452.
69.
BakerSG. Gene signatures revisited. J Natl Cancer Inst2012; 104: 262–263.
70.
BonettiMGelberRD. A graphical method to assess treatment-covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data. Stat Med2000; 19: 2595–2609.
71.
BonettiMGelberRD. Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials. Biostatistics2004; 5: 465–481.
72.
VialeGReganMMDell’OrtoP. Which patients benefit most from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors? Results using a composite measure of prognostic risk in the BIG 1-98 randomized trial. Ann Oncol2011; 22: 2201–2207.
73.
SinghDFebboPGRossK. Gene expression correlates of clinical prostate cancer behavior. Cancer Cell2002; 1: 203–209.
